Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG

Initiated by Elonka at 07:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cases affected

• Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• PHG arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

# Remedy 1: "PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion."

Remedy 2: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended: "The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history is hereby rescinded. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (ArbCom-assigned mentor of PHG)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Per Honor et Gloria
• Angusmclellan

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended
• Original topic ban expired in 2009, on February 2, 2010, so I am requesting an extension of the topic ban for another year, due to continuing disruption at Franco-Mongol alliance and related articles

The original topic ban was on PHG (talk · contribs), a user who has since changed his name to Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs). His original topic ban, placed in March 2008, prevented him from making any edits in the entire topic area of medieval or ancient history for one year. This ban was extended in April 2008 to also require that PHG use only English-language sources, and use a mentor (Angusmclellan) to assist with sourcing. Further problems were reported in July 2008.[3] See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance for a long list of statements from established editors who were expressing concerns about PHG's use of sources. PHG has two specific POVs that he's been pushing, for over two years now: (1) That the Mongols "conquered" Jerusalem in 1300, and (2) that there was an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. Actual mainstream history, is that Jerusalem may have been subject to a Mongol raid at one point, but was not conquered; and that though there were attempts towards alliance, the attempts were unsuccessful. The Arbitration Committee investigated PHG's behavior in 2007/2008, agreed that PHG was misusing sources, and banned him from the medieval history topic area for a year.

Officially, the topic ban expired in 2009, but now that the Franco-Mongol alliance article is up for a Good Article Nomination, In December 2008, PHG filed a new case, requesting that his topic ban be lifted. The result was that the topic ban was narrowed to just articles related to the Crusades and the Mongol Empire, but was extended for another year. This latter topic ban expired on February 2, 2010, and PHG (Per Honor et Gloria) has resurfaced, and is resuming old tactics: Cherry-picking sources, pushing the same old POVs, and attempting to restore the article to the kinds of things it said back in 2007 that led to the ArbCom case in the first place.[4] Of particular concern is that he is de-railing the GA nom,[5][6] by dragging back up his "there was an alliance" POV, insisting that the lead sentence of the article be re-written to say that there was an alliance. This is making GA review extremely complex, as we don't want to have to re-debate this entire thing over again.

One of the things that makes PHG's POV-pushing so damaging, is that he (usually) tends to stay very civil, and his edits always look well-sourced. However, when experienced editors go in and actually look at the information he's trying to add, it becomes clear that PHG is not fairly representing what the sources say, and that he's also pulling in questionable sources, such as fragments of statements from works that are centuries-old,[7] or fragments from footnotes of books that are from long out-of-date historians, or works that are of unclear provenance.[8] Repeated requests to PHG to desist have been made at the article talkpage, and at his user talkpage, by both myself (Elonka),[9][10] and PHG's mentor, Angusmclellan (talk · contribs).[11] PHG promised Angus in email that the problems were over, but then continued with disruptive actions,[12] which are escalating at the GA nom.[13] I did file a request at WP:AE to see if the ban extension could be handled by community consensus, but the thread was closed as non-actionable,[14] so I am bringing it here, and asking that the topic ban be reinstated for at least another year. Thanks, --Elonka 07:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(addendum) My apologies for confusion about case name. There have been two cases related to PHG: Franco-Mongol alliance, and then Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG. I had completely forgotten about the second case (it closed right around the time I went on a several month wikibreak). I've tried to rework the amendment to reflect the more recent (PHG) case, but kept the title of the amendment as "Franco-Mongol alliance" to keep the other links working. I have no objection if the clerks wish to re-name things for consistency, and sincerely apologize for any confusion. --Elonka 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what seems to me a fairly clear example of the problem: PHG was under a topic ban from editing articles related to the Crusades and Mongol history. The nexus of the dispute is the Franco-Mongol alliance article, where he continues to try push an "alliance" POV, and misuse sources.

• His latest topic ban expired on February 2.
• On February 3, he created a new coatrack article at Timurid relations with Europe.
• On February 4, he basically copy/pasted most of the new article into the Franco-Mongol alliance, with a {{main}} link to his new article.[15] This is a standard tactic of PHG's, creating a new article first, and then trying to use it to bolster POV information that he's adding to some other article, making it look like there was already an article on that topic on Wikipedia.
• When the sources were actually checked, and the unsuitable ones removed (PHG continues to cherry-pick elements from long out-of-date sources), the information he was attempting to add basically boiled down to the current single sentence in the Franco-Mongol alliance article: "In the early 1400s, Timur (Tamerlane), resumed Timurid relations with Europe, attempting to form an alliance against the Egyptian Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire, and engaged in communications with Charles VI of France and Henry III of Castile,[113][114][115] but died in 1405.". (and can probably be boiled down further, it's just taking time to actually review PHG's frequently bad sources). Everything else PHG had tried to add (Christopher Columbus, Franco-Ottoman alliance) was either coatrack that was unrelated to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, or from unusable sources.
• February 8, February 11, I asked PHG to stop editing the Franco-Mongol alliance article and the related Good Article Nomination nom.[16][17]
• February 9, Mentor Angus pinged PHG via email.[18]
• February 11, Angus reiterates, on-wiki, that PHG needs to stop.[19]
• February 14, I informed PHG that I had filed the AE thread.[20]
• February 16
  • 07:36, I informed PHG that I had filed this Request for Amendment to extend his topic ban.[21]
  • 08:29, PHG created Ruad expedition, another coatrack.
  • 08:30, PHG added it as a "main" link to the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[22]
• (note also Talk:Ruad expedition, where there are clear objections to this unneeded new article)

I hope from the above it is clear that an extension of PHG's topic ban is the proper thing to do. When his last one expired on February 2, he immediately resumed POV editing on February 3, and is still fixated on the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Within a short period of time, his behavior has escalated to again creating coatrack articles. And remember that last time, it took us two years to repair the damage from all the articles he touched. He is not honoring his mentor's requests to stop. Can we please just extend his topic ban again? --Elonka 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, starting tomorrow, I will be on wikibreak until March 15, though should still be reachable by email. --Elonka 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back from wikibreak. --Elonka 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(one month followup) Despite repeated reminders for over a month, PHG's mentor, Angus McLellan, has not yet posted a statement to this amendment, despite his placeholder below.

As I (Elonka) am one of the primary editors dealing with PHG in this topic area, I have to admit to some frustration. Though PHG's POV-pushing on matters related to the Mongols is glaringly obvious to those who are familiar with the topic, I understand that to those not familiar with the subject matter, the situation may be somewhat confusing. I've been trying to find examples which make the situation more clear. For example, at Talk:Fall of Ruad#Map of 1300 operations there is a discussion about images. What is clear to me, is that PHG is attempting to use this article as an opportunity to insert an image, created by himself, which includes an arrow showing Mongol troop movements towards Jerusalem (even though Jerusalem isn't a key element of the article). This is part of a pattern of PHG-created images which show both this Jerusalem arrow, and apparent Mongol advances as far south as Gaza (see image at right). However, there was no armed clash at Gaza, the Jerusalem arrow is giving clear undue weight to the idea of a Mongol raid there (they raided several cities in Palestine for a period of a few months). A further POV problem with the image is that PHG focuses strictly on the troop movements of the Crusaders and the Mongols, but never shows the alternate view, of what the Egyptian Mamluks were doing as they advanced from the south and engaged (and defeated) the Mongols. PHG is all about the Mongol advance "towards Jerusalem", and not about the overall context, or what was going on with the other side of the engagement.

As far as what I think ArbCom should do at this point, it's pretty simple: Please extend PHG's topic ban on Crusades and Mongol articles, preferably indefinitely. If PHG wishes to participate on these articles, he can make suggestions on talkpages. The ArbCom may also wish to consider appointing a more engaged mentor, since Angus appears to have limited time to deal with PHG. --Elonka 16:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One small point about the amendments being discussed: It's probably best to refer to PHG's current account name, Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs), or at least to make a note somewhere about the name change. --Elonka 21:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the name... Just as a nudge, can this be closed now? --Elonka 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice trap! Elonka threatens me of Arbcom prosecution a few days ago [23] telling me "Do not edit it, do not participate at the talkpage, do not participate at the GA nom" at the Franco-Mongol alliance page, in itself a rather unethical threat (is an Administrator permitted to effectively impose an article ban through personal threat, especially when deeply involved?)... Then she nicely invites me to respond to her on that very page [24], I am stupid enough to answer to the invitation [25], and now she uses that as a justification to implement her initial threat. Isn't this wonderful?

My edits, my good humour, my civility, my sourcing

Altogether, I must have done about 20 edits to the Franco-Mongol page and its Talk Page in the last two weeks or so. I have been taking pains to make extremely well-sourced statements with mainstream academic online references so that all I write can be checked by anybody. No disputes, respecting the content of other contributors: Wikipedia editing at its best [26][27][28]. But no, Elonka seems to resent the very fact that I simply contribute, however professionally, to the Franco-Mongol alliance page, an article I created two years ago.

• To use Elonka's own words, I tend to remain "very civil" because I do think it is important to be so, and to respect the others. I do tend to resent incivility or the callous treatment that some Administrators give to other users "Stop…." "Enough…": we are not cattle, we are not members of a boot camps or prisoners, just unpaid volunteers. As a gesture of goodwill, I have even made small presents to Elonka [29], explaining her several times that I wanted to please her and be her friend [30].

• My sources "look good", because they are good: I remain very factual in my contribution and as often as I can link to scholarly online Google Book references so that everybody can check for themselves, and, if desired, can correct the Wikipedia content accordingly. I have learned to do this for contentious issues, so that the sources can be accessed by anyone who has doubts. You will see that virtually all online references in the Franco-Mongol article today were added by myself.

• Isn't it strange, almost laughable, that I have been contributing lovingly more than 1085 articles to this encyclopedia, devoting 6 years of my life to this ideal of knowledge-sharing, obtaining 8 FAs [31], and 145 stringently-checked DYK articles [32], but that when it comes to articles Elonka claims ownership of, I become all of a sudden the worst of editors, only worthy of blames, blocks and negative comments?

Accusations based on misrepresentation of facts (Oh! Jerusalem! 1300)

Elonka has been forcing her point of view on the relationships between the Franks and the Mongols in the 13th century, attacking the main contributor on the subject (me) if my views did not fit hers.

Most significantly, she has attacked me strenuously for two years for claiming that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300. Elonka's problem now is that User:Srnec painstakingly studied the sources himself and strongly challenged her former interpretation, declaring that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [33] and that it can be said that they "took" and "held" the city [34]. It turns out that the raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources [35]. The historian Andrew Jotischki confirms that in 1300 "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan returned to Persia" (Jotischki p.249). Elonka herself has been forced to change her writing to the Mongols "probably" raided Jerusalem in 1300! [36]. She even had to apologize finally [37]. After pursuing me so harshly for so long for writing about the Mongols and Jerusalem in 1300, this is quite a change isn’t it? In light of her misrepresentations of historical facts, which she used to obtain a ruling against me, I think Elonka could become a little more humble in her views on history, but, no, all she can find is sending me here. The problem I believe is that Elonka makes very strong statements, and pursues other users harshly based on factually wrong premises. Just as she misrepresented facts for Jerusalem, there are many more instances where she takes such a stance, and you have to follow it, or else.

A rather unethical and unfair request

The Arbcom has formally determined that I could resume normal editing now, so, my intention is indeed to resume normal editing (see an example with Ruad expedition). I think if Elonka has issues with some of my contributions, she should just raise the issues, discuss them specifically, and resolve them according to Wikipedia rules, rather than make a rethoretical attack as above.

I think our responsibility as Wikipedians is to follow the sources punctiliously (I've become much better at that, and I'm now making sure all my contributions can be checked online whenever possible), and to make sure that power-hungry or drama-hungry individuals do not skew the facts too much. Best regards to all, and happy editing! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SHELL KINNEY

Wrong dates

Shell claims that "despite his promise that he would stay away from the topic, PHG created an article coatrack just an hour later and inserted it into the Franco-Mongol alliance article". This is mistaken: I created Ruad expedition at 09:29, 16 February 2010 [38], and agreed to stop editing in the area about 10 hours later after being asked at 19:34, 16 February 2010 [39]. I would appreciate if the incorrect assertion could be removed.

Not "the same content"

Shell writes "he's created at least two additional articles to bolster his changes despite the same article content existing elsewhere". This not exact: Timurid relations with Europe has never existed anywhere else. For Ruad expedition, all the specifics of the expedition, a major event described in detail by such authors as Alain Demurger (a whole chapter, 20 pages), had disapeared from Wikipiedia. As of February 2, after two years, all that remained was:

"The Templars established a base on Ruad Island,[106] which was then used as a staging area, and a joint force of Cypriots, approximately half of which were from the various military orders, was sent to the island.[107] From there, raids were launched on Tortosa while the Cypriots awaited the arrival of the Mongols. However, the Mongols were delayed, and the Crusader forces ended up returning to Cyprus, leaving a garrison on Ruad. When the Mongols did arrive in February 1301, they were only able to engage in some minor raids before having to withdraw." Franco-Mongol Alliance article, Feb 2 [40]

...just a general statement, without anything specific, no mention of Jacques de Molay, numbers, etc, well, a few summary sentences.... which is fine as long as we can find somewhere else all the details of the expedition if we want (hence the need for a specific article on the subject). This is very different from the Siege of Ruad itself, which is the Mamluk-led offensive in 1302, and does only cover the end of the event. Content-wise, you will notice that this article is highly referenced on immediately-checkable online sources, from the best academic authors, so what's the problem??? In order to respect Elonka's drive to keep everything short and in summary-form in the main Franco-Alliance article, isn't the solution to go into details in sub-articles?

Not "snippets"

Shell wites "cherry pick statements from sources, misrepresent the source's meaning and base entire viewpoints on a snippet seen while searching Google Books". This is inexact: 99% of the time, the links I give to Google Books offer several pages of viewable material (example), so they are not just snippets, and allow to get a fair view of what the author is saying. Many times, I own the books myself, but I still offer the Google Books links as a courtesy to anybody who would like to check from it. I am quite meticulous in summarizing what the sources says, often to the point of paraphrasing. Please see for yourself. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and not "Google Books" only

I believe Google Books and Google Scholars are usefull sources to obtain significant insights into a given work, usually several pages at a time. They also allow immediate and direct checking by other contributors, which I believe is highly valuable on Wikipedia, especially for contentious subjects. Although I provide Google Book links whenever I can as a courtesy to others, I also many times own the books in question personnally. As of today, I am the owner of about 50 books in French and English on the subject of the Crusades/Mongols, a partial photograph of which I am attaching here. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ELONKA

"Coatrack" and "undue weight"

As anybody can see from my user profile, I am first and foremost a content provider. Good examples of the way I usually build an article could be Boshin war (civil war in Japan, and the rest of the world) or Paris Foreign Missions Society (this time, East-West interaction on the religious plane). These articles are highly factual (basically all the information I can get through books and online sources), lots of photographs (many of mine). That's basically the way I understand articles on Wikipedia, since I took to heart its ambition of being "the sum of all knowledge".

Now, I took the same approach for the Franco-Mongol alliance article , building it up to about 200k through my research France-Mongol alliance full version.

Since Elonka started to get involved into the matter, she has been effectively fighting against giving details of the relations of the Mongols and the West: if I put details into an existing article, she says it is UNDUE WEIGHT. That's how nearly all content about the Mongols disappeared from Louis IX of France, or most precise descriptions from the Franco-Mongol alliance article (about 100k worth). If on the contrary I put the details in a separate article, I get attacked for COATRACKing. If I had added my Ruad expedition content into the Franco-Mongol alliance article or the Siege of Ruad article, it would be gone already or attacked for Undue Weight, but as soon as I put it somewhere else it is claimed as Coatracking. Same thing for Timurid relations with Europe: it would have been claimed as Undue Weight had I put it into the Timur article, and all the details squashed into two lines of generic information.

So, the bottom line it that whether I introduce my "Mongols and the West" work in a large article, or create a separate article with it, I get attacked anyway.

I know the content itself is valuable, it is highly referenced, and suppressing it is contrary to the rules of Wikipedia: "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." Wikipedia:Summary_style

I believe Elonka simply tries to squash any detailed content about the Mongols and the West to uphold her view that no contacts occured, but this is clearly against what the sources say. I believe detailed information on the Mongols and the West belongs to Wikipedia, as long as it is published by reputable sources. To me this would simply defeat the purpose of this encyclopedia should it be suppressed. I only try to uphold this ideal of comprehensiveness on any given subject, and I can see no reason why reputable published information should be withheld simply because one person doesn't like it and bullies those who insert it. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed POV content

So, let's look objectively at the supposedly POV content I added to the Franco-Mongol alliance article in the two weeks since my topic ban ended....

February 3: 4 lines about the perceptions of the Mongols by Asiatic Christians with refs [41].

February 4: 10 summary lines about Timurid relations with Europe with refs [42].

February 4: about 4 lines about Mongol-Hospitaller relations in 1281 with refs [43]

February 5: about 2 lines about Geoffrey of Langley with refs [44].

February 5: about 2 lines about the embassy of Isa Kelemechi with refs [45]

February 5: about 4 lines about the Mongol-Genoese joint construction of fleet with refs [46]

February 6": about 4 lines and refs about the Ruad expedition [47], with link to main article for details.

February 8": correction of an Elonka statement not present in source [48]

February 8: addition of the occupation of Jerusalem, following Elonka's recognition that it indeed "probably happened" [49]

February 11: 1 line about the size of the Samagar campaign [50]

February 11: correction of an Elonka statement not in source [51]

February 11: Correction of an Elonka statement not in given source [52]

These are basically the additions I made, with a few cosmetic changes and I think 2 or 3 more images. Content is short, compact, extremely factual, highly referenced with directly accessible online academic sources: top notch Wikipedia content I believe. This is what Elonka tries to portray as the worst possible of offenses. Please everyone, check for yourself. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of Disruption

Elonka claims disruption from my part in the sporadic factual and referenced contributions I made to the Franco-Mongol alliance (addressed in the previous paragraph). I think her claim of disruption is simply not confirmed by fact. She also claims "disruption" on the GA nomination... well please just check for yourself: I believe my few contributions there have been extremely civil and constructive: [53]. "Disruption" on the Talk Page... well check for yourself: [54]. Unfortunately, I would say the actual disruption started when Elonka again resumed her use of the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk Page as a sort of Attack page against me, a practice which I sense is against the rules of Wikipedia [55][56], and which immediately triggered the concern of several editors [57], [58]. May I request that Elonka be warned against misrepresenting facts so much, and making false accusations in such an aggressive way? Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of important referenced material

Now that the article Ruad expedition (now Fall of Ruad), after being attacked by Elonka as a Coatrack and POV article that should be deleted [59], has finally been fully recognized as a legitimate article in its own right [60], I am sorry to report that Elonka is removing from it referenced mentions from the best sources (Peter Jackson, Malcolm Barber, provided with Google Books online links, or Alain Demurger, now available in English translation through Profile Books, London, and visible through Amazon.com) of the intention or agreement of the Crusaders to cooperate with the Mongols. These deletions of important referenced material are hidden within sweeping rewrites (usually under the generic "Copy editing" label), and are of course not mentioned in the edit summaries:

• 22:48, 1 March 2010 edit [61]: suppression of "The aim of the Ruad expedition was to link up with the Mongol ruler Ghazan", directly sourced from Barber, p.22 Jackson, p.171. Also in Demurger The Last Templar p.95 ISBN 9781846682247: "Molay and his Order, together with the other Christian forces of Cyprus and Armenia, were wholly engaged in trying to recover the Holy Land, in association with the Mongol king of Persia, Ghazan. And the Templar's two year occupation of the island of Ruad, off Tortosa, on the Syrian coast, must be seen solely in this light."
• 00:28, 2 March 2010 edit [62]: suppression of "probably in order to reaffirm his commitment to the military alliance with the Mongols, Henry II set up a large naval raiding operation." sourced from Demurger, The Last Templar p.100 ISBN 9781846682247: "It was doubtless to make the unity between the Mongols and Franks evident to both Christians and Mamluks that raids by a Christian fleet on Egypt and Syria were organized, beginning 20 July (...) Above all, this expedition made manifest the unity of the Cypriot Franks, and through a material act, put the seal on the Mongol alliance", also similarly in Jackson, p.171.
• 00:28, 2 March 2010 edit [63]: deletion of the fact that during the July 1300 Crusader naval raid "Ghazan's ambassador Isol the Pisan onboard, raised the Il-Khan's banner.", a fact referenced from Demurger: "with ... the Khan's ambassador, whose banner was raised on the boats", Alain Demurger, The Last Templar p.100 ISBN 9781846682247

Etc... Such information is central to the article, as it explains the whole rationale and outlook behind these Crusader campaigns, and probably cannot be sourced any better... I wonder if systematically deleting referenced information one dislikes is indeed the proper way to edit neutraly on Wikipedia? Such deletions are, I am afraid, rather un-encyclopedic, and seem to participate to a strange desire to eliminate at all cost any concrete examples of collaboration between Crusaders and Mongols, in spite of the facts reported by the most reputable sources. I suggest Elonka should be requested to stop deleting referenced material from Wikipedia, and rather be encouraged to balance material she wishes to object to with other sources when needed. This would go a very long way towards resolving disputes.

An E-mail promise???

Elonka wrote "PHG promised Angus in email that the problems were over, but then continued with disruptive actions"... well, this statement is quite misleading and untrue. Elonka's accusation is based on an email communication she has not seen, and she only makes conjectures regarding its content. I can say in all transparency, that the e-mail in question only responded to Angus’ worries about the specific discussion regarding the Mongols in Syria in 1300, and that I was glad to announce to Angus that the problem was solved because finally Elonka had recognized the "probable" presence of the Mongols in Jerusalem in 1300, after 2 years claiming the contrary (and attacking me for it). This is when I wrote with great excitement and relief "Elonka, this is wonderful" [64]. On that occasion, I also reaffirmed to Angus that I had no intention to be dragged into ridiculous disputes and that, to achieve that aim, I wanted to make contributions that remained extremely factual and well documented. I think Elonka should refrain from making conjectures about, and misrepresenting the content of, private e-mails she has not seen, and especially to treat these conjectures as fact to make quite grave accusations...

How about turning the page?

It seems everytime now I am involved in a discussion, Elonka just comes up with a description of the case that was put up in the past against me: [65], [66], [67], [68], making disparaging comments [69][70], and even using this as a justification to set arbitrary rules against me [71] to the surprise of several fellow contributors [72], [73]. Is it fair practice to keep rehashing and advertising past sentences, most especially after my topic ban is now over? I thought that once you're freed from serving time, you're not supposed to be ostracized based on your past experience? I also think you're not supposed to make an argument on article content just by making personal attacks and saying ("Oh, but you know, PHG so and so...") Isn't this a bit abusive? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign map... attempting to create a problem when there is none

Elonka criticizes a map I created (Latest post above), but I am afraid this is attempting to create a problem where there is none.

1) This map represents the campaigns of the Franks, Mongols and Armenians, who were attempting to coordinate their action in the Levant in 1299-1300. According to Elonka this map would be "POV" as it does not represent the movements of the rival Mamluk troops. Well, representing Mamluks movements would be fine, although it would make the map quite heavy and hard to read. The title of the article being Ruad expedition, showing these campaign movements was quite relevant, although the new title Fall of Ruad blurs the focus a bit. Overall, I agree a map of Mamluk movements would be fine as well. But in effect, by removing this map from the article Fall of Ruad, Elonka has removed [74] the only map that shows Frankish troop movements in 1299-1300, thereby denying a central illustration of what the article is about.

2) Elonka criticizes the fact that Gaza was illustrated by a "clash" mark (she uses an old map, before I made modifications to it almost 3 weeks ago [75]). This refers to the occupation of Gaza by the Mongols 1299-1300, something widely reported by historians (Singh, p.39, Amitai-Preiss p.33...). I don't mind whether this occupation (several months) is represented by a "clash" mark or not, so I readily took it away 3 weeks ago already in order to please Elonka [76]. It is strange for Elonka to bring this up again (a very minute issue) as if it were a "problem". I had earlier also modified the size of the arrow to Gaza following a request by Elonka [77], as well as added the names of Ruad and Tortosa, also at her request [78].

3) Elonka critizes the fact that Jerusalem is shown in this map, as well as an arrow pointing to it. Jerusalem being such an an important and symbolic city in Palestine, I think it is quite normal that it be shown, as on most of the maps of the period, and it is also almost systematically described/highlighted in the historical accounts of the Mongol foray into Palestine (for example Jotischsky, p.249, but also Demurger etc...). I really don't see why a map should avoid depicting what most historians mention and agree on. Elonka is here using outdated data (an old map before improvement through discution), and disputing the illustration of events that the majority of historians of the period agree about and mention (the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem), in order to argue against my map-making contribution.

4) Above all, let me highlight the fact that the depiction of the Mongol campaign in the map I created is essentially similar to the depiction of the same campaign in a map Elonka has jointly developed with User:MapMaster [79] (shown to the right), warmly approved by her [80] and inserted by herself into the Ruad expedition article for the last 3 weeks [81], which exactly displays the very characteristics she is now accusing me of:

• the Mongol advance to Gaza
• the arrow to Jerusalem (with the only difference of a question mark over the arrow, which is not relevant anymore now that Elonka has acknowledged the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem [82])
• the supposedly "POV" lack of illustration of the Mamluks counter-offensive.
• the usage of such a map in the Ruad expedition article.

I believe this clearly shows that Elonka is accusing me of things which she actually endorses, approves and implements. How on Earth can what she approves and supports when she is the one to contribute, become damnable when I am the contributor? Elonka thinks and knows that this illustration of the Mongol campaigns in 1299-1300 is exact and legitimate, but nevertheless is trying to deceive Arbcom into believing the contrary.

I am afraid this makes it obvious that this last accusation by Elonka is neither exact nor fair. Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to dismiss

I would like to propose that the present attempt to reopen this case without any clear ground to do so is simply an attempt to use the system and the threat of Arbcom prosecution as a tool to restrict my editorial rights, inspite of the formal end of my topic ban and the quality of my contributions [83]. I guess this is what is generally called "gaming the system" and "disruption" on Wikipedia. For example, the "POV" accusations about creating the Ruad expedition article have finally boiled down to a discussion about finding the most adequate title [84]. The "COATRACK" accusations about creating the article Timurid relations with Europe are finally receiving no significant support [85]. Then, Elonka's 4th motion [86] to change the article name at Franco-Mongol alliance seems like a rehashing of old discussions, inspite of the fact that this has been resolved three times in the past: 1: Request for move, 2: Poll for renaming the article, 3: Article title, seemingly a rather examplary case of disruption. As support is not forthcoming, e-mail canvassing is probably going to be called to the rescue now. These series of actions seem to me to boil down to undue maneuvering, demonstrably false accusations, and the incessant repetition of rather strident personal attacks, and only result in disrupting the system, losing everybody's time and good humour, damaging editor motivation, and giving a poor image of Wikipedia. I suggest this case be dismissed and that such behaviour be warned against. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final rejection

Elonka's 4th motion in 2 years to change the title of the Franco-Mongol alliance article has again been rejected by the community [87], as I think should be this request for amendment. Please let there be some justice on Wikipedia. Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 03:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom of it

Let me quote (and provide a readable link to) Jotishcky Crusading and the Crusader States p.239, whom I believe admirably summarizes the facts of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Claiming that there were only "attempts at an alliance" is misleading and a contradiction of historical facts. The alliance, or a succession of alliances (that is, agreements to achieve a common goal) indeed took place, but the results were without dispute very little (a few combined operations and a few coordinated strategic movements):

"In 1262 Hulagu, the Mongol leader of the Near East, offered an alliance to Louis IX. An uneasy series of temporary alliances with the Mongols followed in the second half of the 13th century, but it was always an unequal relationship, and nothing substantial came out of them" Jotishcky Crusading and the Crusader States p.239

Best regards to all, and so much for the encyclopedic respect of historical facts. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pet theory?

For those who seem to think that the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols is a pet theory, please just check the following quotes by major historians: Andrew Jotischki in Crusading and the Crusader States, who describes a succession of alliances over half a century, which ended with very little results (only a few combined actions, a few coordinated strategic moves that ended in military defeat against the Mamluks):

• "In 1262 Hulagu, the Mongol leader of the Near East, offered an alliance to Louis IX. An uneasy series of temporary alliances with the Mongols followed in the second half of the 13th century, but it was always an unequal relationship, and nothing substantial came out of them" (Andrew Jotischki Crusading and the Crusader States p.239)

J.R. Phillips in The medieval expansion of Europe, who describes "some kind of alliance or collaboration" that lasted half a century:

• "1248 may be taken as the year in which an alliance between the Mongols and Europe was first seriously considered by both parties. From then until the early fourteenth century some kind of alliance or cooperation was an almost constant feature of their relations." (The medieval expansion of Europe by J. R. S. Phillips, p.118)

We shouldn't be making an amalgam of two different concepts: an alliance and its outcome. I believe this is exactly how we should explain the Franco-Mongol alliance: agreements to ally over a period of about half a century, but failure to properly coordinate and ultimate military defeat. I proposed at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance the following definition of the alliance, which could be used at the introduction sentence:

"The Franco-Mongol alliance was ... a diplomatic and military rapprochement between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols against the Muslim Mamluks between the mid-13th and early 14th centuries, which led to numerous attempts at collaboration, and ultimately ended in military failure."

Isn't this a very honest and balanced description, which fully incorporates the difficulties of the subject? Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 17:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As was pointed out here the above remedy has expired. As the editing restrictions against PHG expired long ago, so I don't see that this is a legitimate venue for discussion. How can you look for an amendment to a remedy which has expired? If there is a problem, a new ArbCom decision (or other form of dispute resolution) is needed to resolve them. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this type of conduct here totally unacceptable in light of PHG's positive and constructive attitude below. The explanation offered here for this personal attack is quite disingenuous, factually incorrect and very misleading and an abuse of an Article talk page. Likewise, the explanation offered for canvassing [88][89][90], as it fails to address why this editor was not informed of the new forum. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Shell Kinney comments have no supporting diff's at all. That she is commenting on articles that she has never edited [91][92] and never commented on on their talk pages [93][94]. What prompted Shell Kinney comments on the articles? If anything can be said of the above mentioned articles is that tags are being addind with no reasons be offered. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that Shell will not stop with here inane personal attacks on PHG. With again no evidence to support her accusations of POV pushing, and taking no part herself in what appears to be a reasonable talk page discussion it appears she is blindly acting on her friends behalf or that is the appearance being given. Inflaming the issues with this comment and edit summary it seems to be ignoring the advice offered by Cool Hand Luke and the very constructive and positive position adopted by PHG. This provocation would not be considered acceptable from an Admin let alone a moderator. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PHG is the author of nine featured articles! This is a content dispute folks! Stop defending an Admin who is actively involved and using this forum as a means of removing a productive editor. An Admin with a history of questionable actions and honesty who has not provided any supporting evidence and neither has her side kick. Welcome to the FOX NEWS version of wikipedia! --Domer48_'fenian' 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen ample justification for the original topic ban and its extension. Now immediately after it has expired (2. February 2010 is not "long ago" as claimed by Domer48 above), I had to observe that the same old problems resurface virtually unchanged. In fairness, the one visible change is that he dresses his POV pushing (and even his personal attacks against Elonka) in very polite words now, where in the beginning he could be highly caustic. But that is really just sugar-coating on the actual problem. As strange as it seems, PHG appears entirely unable to view historical topics from a neutral distance, and to look at his pet theories in the light of a larger context. Over several years, all arguments by others have washed right off him without leaving any traces of insight. So even after two years of restriction, I still see an ongoing need for damage control. Since a change of attitude seems highly unlikely, I will support an indefinite extension of his topic ban. --Latebird (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was about ready to bring this myself having seen PHG's edits to Franco-Mongol Alliance over the past week. The views being expressed are identical to those from the first case which ArbCom reviewed and found to be a complete misrepresentation of sources. This behavior not only hasn't stopped in relation to the Mongols, but apparently is spilling into other areas. It is not appropriate, no matter how well intentioned, to cherry pick statements from sources, misrepresent the source's meaning and base entire viewpoints on a snippet seen while searching Google Books - PHG doesn't seem to have caught on to this issue and is still just as reluctant to change his behavior when its pointed out as a problem.

Again, as in the first case, we see PHG scrambling to create additional coatracks for his theory once he's caught - he's created at least two additional articles to bolster his changes despite the same article content existing elsewhere (without PHG's novel spin on things). It took over two years for us to clean up this mess last time folks, can we please not let this get started again? I applaud PHG's intentions and hard work as an editor, but since he can't seem to understand the problems with the way he uses sources, especially when it comes to historical articles, and since his mentor has apparently not been able to resolve this issue, we need to stop this disruption to the project.

I think its also important to note that despite his promise that he would stay away from the topic, PHG created an article coatrack just an hour later after posting his response here (and after requests by his mentor to stop) but before the actual promise to stop editing in the area and inserted it into the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Again, this is an exact repeat of the behavior that caused the issue to get all the way to Arbitration in the first place. Shell ^babelfish

Hi Shell, you claim that "despite his promise that he would stay away from the topic, PHG created an article coatrack just an hour later and inserted it into the Franco-Mongol alliance article.". This is factually incorrect. You are mistaken on the date stamps: I created Ruad expedition at 09:29, 16 February 2010 [95], and agreed to stop editing in the area about 10 hours later, after being asked here, at 19:34, 16 February 2010 [96]. Could you kindly remove the incorrect assertion? Thank you! (please delete this post once this is solved) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its also interesting that the problems resumed on Feb 3, one day after the ban from the second case expired. The two coatrack articles I mentioned above are Timurid relations with Europe and Ruad expedition. Shell ^babelfish 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not editing, PHG is still managing to push his pet theories [97]. Shell ^babelfish 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few updates to clarify the concerns here and respond to PHG's comments:

• The day after his restriction ended, PHG returned to push the same novel theories as in the Arbitration case. His claims that people have bent to his position are incorrect. As you can see in the diff he provided, Adam agrees that the Mongols went as far as Jerusalem, a fact which was never in doubt. This is not a change from previous discussions, yet PHG has claimed this as a victory above. This is a serious concern because "reached and went through" is a far cry from the words PHG wants to use including "conquered" or "occupied". Its also interesting to note that there were no Francs in Jerusalem at this time so regardless of how inappropriate his sourcing and understanding of the sources is, this information has absolutely no business in the article anyways(but he can't get it in elsewhere so he's pushing here).
• PHG is basing contentious statements or even entire paragraphs on an excerpt from Google Books. He defends this practice above, maintaining that the page or less he's able to view (again, note he does not have access to the full source) gives him enough context to make inferences about the source and present the theories. What is happening in reality is that PHG is often misunderstanding or misusing the source due to a)looking for phrases that support his theories instead of evaluating the source as a whole b)only getting a small part of the source leading him to poor conclusions.
• PHG still has problems with coming to a conclusion first and finding sources he believes support that conclusion. This frequently leads him to completely misrepresent sources. One of the key clues as to when PHG is sourcing things well and when he is trying to support a novel theory is the number of sources used. Compare his productive articles elsewhere, where he uses a fairly normal number of sources to his latest attempt at Franco-Mongol alliance where he used 10 sources to support a single sentence which was later soundly denounced by every other editor participating for using ancient sources, unreliable sources and sources that did not say what PHG claimed. This did turn out well, but I think asking the community to continue to monitor every edit PHG makes to this topic area is too much. This wastes hours and hours as editors are required to get a hold of actual sources, many extremely rare, only to find that PHG has completely misrepresented the reference.
• Mentoring does not seem to be solving the problem. This started again immediately after the ban was lifted despite a long period of mentoring in which PHG should have learned more appropriate methods of sourcing. PHG has ignored the requests of his mentor (who had to be pinged by another editor each time) to stop this behavior. Clearly, Angus is not reviewing PHG's sources. Angus also hasn't bothered to respond to this request, despite having quite a few weeks and being reminded more than once.

Obviously PHG has been able to work very well in other topic areas. Perhaps he does not have as many preconceived notions elsewhere, or simply isn't as invested in the outcome. Whatever the case, once again many hours of contributor time have been lost trying to resolve this issue which again is complete and utter misuse and misrepresentation of sources to achieve an unsupportable POV. Shell ^babelfish 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case the Arbs don't catch the irony, that's the same picture PHG posted in 2007 - the same books he misused repeatedly (which was quite soundly proven in the case). Note especially that not a single one of the sources PHG has used lately show up on his "bookshelf". In particular, if PHG does own a copy of books that are now hundreds of years old and is not using the snippets from Google Books, I welcome him to take a picture of THAT. Shell ^babelfish 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, I've just updated the image with some of my more recent acquisitions: just hit the "Refresh" button. Best regards! Per Honor et Gloria ✍

More misdirection; all you've done is add in the book you have on the Crusades. Can you show me:

• Helen J. Nicholson (2001). The Knights Hospitaller, p.45. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 0851158455.
• Michael Prestwich (1988). Edward I, p.331. University of California Press. ISBN 0520062663.
• Richard A. Gabriel (2002). The great armies of antiquity, p.343. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0275978095.
• Andrew Jotischky (2004). Crusading and the crusader states, p.249. Pearson Education. ISBN 0582418518.
• J. R. S. Phillips (1998). The medieval expansion of Europe, p.127ff. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198207409.
• Christopher Tyerman (1996). England and the Crusades, 1095-1588, p.239. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226820130.
• Colin Morris (2005). The sepulchre of Christ and the medieval West: from the beginning to 1600, p.296. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198269285.

That is the bulk of the sourcing used for your latest addition to the article, none of which appear in your image. Its also interesting to note that the addition used Jackson's "The Mongols and the West" to support your statement, despite having repeatedly been told that you are misrepresenting what Jackson says - so much so that it was specifically noted in the case against you. All of this handwaving, in an attempt to make this issue go away, does nothing to resolve the meat of the problem. Shell ^babelfish 17:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shell. I'm afraid your list is a bit selective: by very far the source I have most used recently is Alain Demurger The Last Templar ISBN 2228902357, the English translation of the fantastic Jacques de Molay (which by the way also visible in large part on Amazon), and also quite a bit of Setton The Papacy and the Levant, which are right there snuggly inserted in my photogenic book pile. I also own Andrew Jotischky Crusading and the crusader states and J. R. S. Phillips The medieval expansion of Europe, although at another location. Hope this helps! My very best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled that "selective" list directly from your last insertion into the article. Are you saying that of that list, you have read only Jackson, Setton and Demurger? May I ask why you thought it was appropriate to list those other sources as well? Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. For example, for Jotischky I provide a Google Book link Jotischki, p.249, and I also happen to own the book. For Nicholson, I provide a Google Books link Nicholson p.45, and don't own the book. My sources are either books I own or books I don't own, and I try to provide a Google Book link whenever possible. Of course, I always read the sources I use in an article, either my own books, sometimes books at a bookstore or a library, or book excerpts, usually several pages long, from Google Books or sometimes Amazon. But at the very least, about 80% of the references I have used in the last few months have been painstakingly provided by me with readable links to Google Books so that anybody can check content, either from books I own or I don't own, and the rest of my references would be from books I own but are not accessible online. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet oddly, the ones you own don't appear in your photograph? I'm sorry to hear that you've read these sources because that puts us back to either unintentionally or deliberately manipulating and misrepresenting sources. Shell ^babelfish 14:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, here are some more of my books Shell. Now, you're making general accusations about "manipulating" or "misrepresenting" sources. Could you highlight some specifics within the boundaries of this case (let say February 1 to February 15)? I'm truely interested. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to show this is to look at a statement you made from today:

Claiming that there were only "attempts at an alliance" is misleading and a contradiction of historical facts. The alliance, or a succession of alliances (that is, agreements to achieve a common goal) indeed took place, but the results were without dispute very little (a few combined operations and a few coordinated strategic movements)

If, after reading those sources and all the discussion that has gone on since the first case has not made clear to you that you are grossly misreading the sources to make such a claim (and/or misunderstanding the connotation of "alliance" when used in this manner), there's little hope that you're going to be able to correct this mistake on your own. Unfortunately, that leaves us with no choice but to ask you to edit in a topic where you do not have such problems. Shell ^babelfish 23:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, this statement is sourced from Jotishcky Crusading and the Crusader States p.239. The same statement could also be sourced from numerous authors such as Alain Demurger. It is also in substance what say most historians. An alliance is an agreement to achieve a common goal (see any dictionary definition), and indeed numerous agreements between the Franks and the Mongols to ally and collaborate militarily have reached us in written form, and actual military actions were even undertaken to collaborate, so the fact that there was some form of alliance is 100% undisputable. It's a matter of fact rather than opinion. What is also undisputable however is that the alliance bore little fruit. But just because an alliance had few results however doesn't equate with saying that there was "no alliance", or that there were only "attempts at an alliance", and I think that's true in any language. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 23:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that, just as I noticed the variety of the same types of quotes you attempted to pull out of sources in the first case which were unequivocally found to be misrepresenting the entirety of the source in favor of glorifying a single phrase or in some cases, making claims that were completely contradicted by the source you claimed to use. Is it possible that since English is your second language, you are misunderstanding the difference between the various cooperations and attempts at treaties between different rulers and an alliance between the Franks and Mongols? These two things are not the same. In fact, that gave me a good thought about the article name problem that might satisfy both sides; I'll post that now. Shell ^babelfish 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal to describe it as "alliances" is very interesting indeed [98]. I totally agree that the periods of alliance between the Franks and the Mongols were quite discontinuous. Authors do explain the sealing of an alliance at the 1274 Council of Lyons for example (Jotischki, p.246), which then "had to be revived" in 1299-1300 (Jotishcky p.249). It is also true that there was no alliance or attempts at collaboration for several years at a time. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made that suggestion in the belief that you were trying to turn a corner and hoping we could put this behind us. I suppose I should have seen it coming, but after reading the sources you gave, its clear that once again, you've completely misrepresented what they're saying. In every case of every quote you've given, the actual quote/section talks about attempts at an alliance that didn't work out. We've now looked at between 30-50 reputable historians (I'd have to check my spreadsheet for the actual number) and not a single one agrees with your theory that an actual alliance ever occurred - you've found two books that seem to agree with your theory, one that other historians call "a work of fiction" and the other who's been shown to misrepresent sources in the same manner as you - its time to let it go. Shell ^babelfish 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder: PHG and I are currently discussing this matter elsewhere. I do not intend to submit a statement until we have exhausted our conversation. Since PHG has agreed to Steve Smith's request below, I do not believe this should be a problem. My apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• In response to Domer, I am of the view that ArbCom may renew its own expired remedies as amendments to the cases that imposed the remedies; even if it may not, the distinction is a fine one, since ArbCom may certainly renew its own expired remedies by way of simple motion. This is going to take some time to look into; PHG, would you be willing to voluntarily hold off on editing within the former topic ban for a week or so while we catch up? Steve Smith (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be glad to comply to this request. Please note that this leaves me free however to contribute to Talk Pages within the former topic (i.e. Crusades/Mongols), to the contrary of the non-community-approved ban Elonka has been trying to impose on me (the "don't contribute or I'll pursue you" threat [99]). Please take this time to review precisely the 20 edits or so I made to the Franco-Mongol Alliance page after 2 years of absence: we're talking about 10 lines of factual content, with about 20 online academic Google Book references: I am confident you will see that they represent some of the best editorial standards. Best regards, Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone stay calm. PHG has agreed to stay away for the moment. I would especially value the input of Angusmclellan. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please continue to hold. PHG, please do not edit in this area until we've had more time to talk this over. Cool Hand Luke 16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem Cool Hand Luke! I am currently working on my latest article: Japanese currency. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused as participant in original case. Shell ^babelfish 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have an update on this, or at least an update on when to expect an update? Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PHG, if you raise your point about Elonka's editing with her (the bit about the map), I'm sure she will discuss it with you, but please don't fall into the trap of comparing and contrasting editors and saying that because others may have done the same as you, that somehow excuses your conduct (the long history and patterns here of doing similar things weigh against you more than others). Discuss your concerns with others first, rather than try and change the subject here. You are still free, after all, to comment on the talk pages of articles. Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elonka's accusations against me demonstrably come to nothing, as you can see above. I would then really like to know what you actually consider worthy of a renewed ban. My contributions to Wikipedia are top-notch accross the board, and I believe my contributions to Mongol-related articles have been truely examplary in the 2 weeks or so I was able to contribute again, before Elonka again went into a drive against me. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Echoing Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• I was on the fence about renewing the topic ban, but in view of the recent postings (particularly the new comment by Elonka), I reluctantly propose renewing the remedies on PHG. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. For the next year:

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
• Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.

and

• Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.

Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Would add the caveat that repeated frivolous requests for the mentor to check PHG's sources should be avoided (and the mentor should be prepared to say that a request was frivolous). The most efficient use of a mentor's time would be to ask for checks where a talk page discussion has taken place between other editors first, giving something for the mentor to review. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Steve Smith (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

2. ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Unfortunately, I think this remedy is still needed. It is my sincere hope that PHG continues to contribute—especially in areas outside of this topic ban, such as early modern French history. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. It should be clarified that this includes a ban on creating articles in this topic area (i.e. 2.1 is a narrower version of this and failure for it to pass doesn't mean that creating such article is OK, as creation is a form of editing). Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. It would appear that this is still needed. Wikipedia is not a venue to expound novel theories. — Coren ^(talk) 14:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Steve Smith (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

2.1. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from creating new articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire;all broadly defined. This restriction will last for a period of one year.

Support

1. Second choice, in the event that 2 fails. Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The topic ban is still necessary. Oppose lighter. SirFozzie (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with SirFozzie. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not yet, at any rate. — Coren ^(talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mailer Diablo 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. The idea of this proposal was to avoid any potential COATRACK problems and see how PHG deals collaboratively on existing articles in this area. I prefer 2, but would not mind passing a narrower restriction if we commit to review his behavior in a few months. Cool Hand Luke 23:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Per Honor et Gloria ✍ at 20:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

• Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• PHG arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Amendment

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

"PHG's topic ban is renewed"

2. ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (ArbCom-assigned mentor of Per Honor et Gloria)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Elonka
• AngusMclellan (repeat above for all parties)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended
• Topic ban was further extended for a 3rd year, on claims that the Franco-Mongol alliance would be a "novel theory" [100]. It is requested that ArbCom reviews actual material from historians (about 70 in all, presented hereafter) to see that the existence of the alliance is on the contrary a highly significant academic view. It is requested that Per Honor et Gloria's topic ban be removed so that these historical views can be adequately represented in relevant articles, and so that he stops being pursued unduely everytime he describes them.

In aquiescing to an extension of my topic ban [101], it would seem that ArbCom members have been led to believe that the "Franco-Mongol alliance" would a "novel theory" not supported by the sources [102]. It has also been claimed that I would be pushing a "pet theory" [103]. Nothing is further from the truth, and I believe it is a highly unfair reason to impose a renewed topic ban on my contributions for such reasons [104]. To clarify this point, I would like to ask everyone to properly review available sources on the subject: I took the pain to catalogue hereafter about 70 academic sources on the subject, with quotes.

Historians describing the existence of an alliance

Literally dozens of historians support the fact that there was an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. Of, course, this alliance didn’t succeed as well as everyone had hoped at the time, but agreements clearly took place, proved by the multiple exchanges and letters, and combined operations occurred as a result, which amply fulfills the defining conditions of an alliance ("an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests"). The outcome of this alliance however was plagued with difficulties: ambitious attempts at collaboration ended with minimal results, and the efforts ultimately ended in defeat against the Mamluks. Please just look for yourselves at what historians actually write (50 of them, with quotes and Google Books links in most cases):

See: HISTORIANS DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF A FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE (50 historians)

Elonka's claims vs historians

The view that "there was no alliance", that "it did not happen" [105] or that there were "only attempts at an alliance" is therefore wrong, or at least very partial and one-sided. I have reviewed in detail the sources User:Elonka’s brought forward to promote that argument, and it turns out that most sources she quotes don’t say what she claims, but are actually much more on the line of "there were great hopes, alliances and collaboration took place to a limited extent, and these ventures had limited results or ended in military failure". Many times Elonka makes very partial quotes, which are contradicted in the same source, as when she claims that Turnbull explains that an alliance was "Possible, but did not happen", whereas in the next sentence Turnbull describes how the resulting "unholy alliance took the field in 1259" [106]. Here is a full list of Elonka’s quotes and analysis, completed by other relevant quotes from the same works found by me, and a synthesis for each:

See: ELONKA'S CLAIMS vs WHAT HISTORIANS ACTUALLY SAY

Request

Based on the above evidence, I think it is obvious that it is wrong to claim that "the consensus between historians is that there was no alliance", and it is ever worse to harass a user because he tries to give a fair presentation of the variety of views on the subject. I am only asking that I stopped being harassed and "topic banned" for putting forward the opinion of a vast number of historians.

In view of the sources, I do not actually think Elonka’s argument should be rejected wholesale, but only that it should be balanced with historians who express a more positive view of the alliance: at the very least there is obviously no academic consensus for Elonka’s exclusive position that there was “no alliance”. An introduction of the type "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards a Franco-Mongol alliance, took place in the second half of the 13th century…" would be legitimate, rather than the one-sided account we have today in the article. This formulation was once accepted by Elonka at mediation [107][108], a pledge later renegated by her.

I am thus asking that:
1) ArbCom reasserts the fundamental Wikipedia rule that articles should be written in a non-POV manner and that all significant opinions of academics should be represented.
2) ArbCom ends this injustice (going into a 3rd year of topic ban for this!), and lifts the Elonka-motivated current topic ban extension on the subject [109].
3) That Elonka be warned against misrepresenting the views of academics, and that she simply be required to accept that the plurality of views can be represented in an article.

I am appealing to your sense of fairness and justice. Best regards to all.
Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom can't make content decisions and cannot "approve" your material. The ban was based on your behavior in misrepresenting sources, ignoring consensus and generally POV pushing to an extreme degree - it's not about what content you espouse, it's how you go about doing it. Shell ^babelfish 21:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have little to add beyond what I already offered in the amendment discussion two weeks ago when PHG's topic ban was extended for another year. Well, I could add that with the relative peace that has been brought about by the topic ban, the Franco-Mongol alliance article is now finally at Good article status, and is currently undergoing a broader MilHist peer review before being nominated for Featured article status. Or in other words, for this latest request by PHG, I concur with everything that Shell just said, and recommend that the arbs simply reject or ignore this latest attempt by PHG. --Elonka 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse. Shell ^babelfish 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject; this is a content dispute. PHG, your restriction does not prevent you from civilly interacting on the articles' talk pages; you need to convince other editors that your suggestions are neutral and verifiable. — Coren ^(talk) 01:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Coren. Am disappointed to see PHG bring this here. This is clearly stuff PHG needs to raise on the talk page of the articles concerned, and in a manner that is collaborative, which means don't write huge long screeds that take a long time to read. That wastes people's time. Work with them to find out how far they are willing to read what you write, and don't focus on this topic to the exclusion of all else - it is not the be-all-and-end-all of Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I generally agree with Coren and Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with Coren and Carcharoth, and see no reason to amend the decision. Risker (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Per Honor et Gloria ✍

Case affected

• Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• PHG arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Amendment

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

"PHG's topic ban is renewed"

2. ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (ArbCom-assigned mentor of Per Honor et Gloria)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [110]
• [111]

• Lifting of restrictions or some sort of probation regarding editing in the "Crusades and Mongols" area.

• Lifting of editing restrictions on "Hellenism and India", which have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

In my previous Amendment Request, I documented the fact that the Franco-Mongol alliance is not a "novel theory" nor a "pet theory" of mine as claimed by Elonka and some others [112][113], but on contrary something which is described as fact by a vast quantity, and even possibly the majority, of historians (See: 50 historians describing the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance). This request was rejected on the ground that content disputes are outside ArbCom’s jurisdiction [114]. Well, in that case I believe most of Elonka’s claims against me [115], as well as several votes and comments in the last Amendment Request [116][117] clearly become irrelevant.

I would like to know then upon what ground the current ban extension (for a 3rd year!) would be legitimate. In the time period since my previous ban ended and Elonka again asked for editing restrictions against me (2 weeks, from February 2nd to February 16th) I believe my editorial behavior has been exemplary:

Qualitative edits, no edit-warring

Altogether, I must have done about 20 edits to the Franco-Mongol alliance page and its Talk page in that time period. I have been taking pains to make extremely well-sourced statements with mainstream academic online references so that all I write can be checked by anybody. No disputes, respect of the content of other contributors: Wikipedia editing at its best [118][119][120].

Best possible civility

To use Elonka's own words, I tend to remain "very civil" [121]. As a gesture of goodwill, I have even made small presents to Elonka [122], explaining her several times that I wanted to please her and be her friend [123].

Well-sourced contributions

I remained highly factual in my contributions, and also systematically sourced them to scholarly online Google Book references so that everybody can check for themselves, and, if desired, can correct the Wikipedia content accordingly. [124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135].

I believe it is an injustice to extend a topic ban under such inadequate conditions. Please put me under some sort of probation if you wish, but don’t extend this topic ban without a good reason. I am asking for:
1) Either the lifting of restrictions or some sort of probation regarding editing in the "Crusades and Mongols" area.
2) The lifting of my editing restrictions on "Hellenism and India", which have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Best regards to all and thank you for your understanding. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 12:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just do this? Further repetitions of "I'm right, it's all Elonka's fault" are starting to make me think the ban should have been from talk pages as well.[136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] Shell ^babelfish 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Nope. Maybe we need to extend this to talk pages too or a total ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• PHG, enough please. There is no persecution, and your repeated appeals are playing against you. — Coren ^(talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Rlevse and Coren. The reason talk page editing was left open to you was to be constructive, not disruptive. If you are running into problems on talk pages, please talk to your mentor. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you are going about this the wrong way. Work with others to see what you agree on, not what you disagree on, and then work forward from there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, PHG needs to take a step back here. SirFozzie (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• PHG, we are unlikely to reconsider this any time soon. In the mean time, you have access to the talk pages to flag any problems. Cool Hand Luke 14:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---